Problem issues of judicial consideration of cases for the commission of petty hooliganism (according to the results of the scientific analysis of the decision of the Frunzensky district court of Kharkiv from august 21, 2018 (case no. 645/4761/18))

Abstract

The purpose of this publication is a scientific analysis of the decision of the Frunzensky District Court of Kharkiv dated August 21, 2018 on bringing a person to administrative liability under art. 173 “Small hooliganism” Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses.

The methodological basis of the presented scientific analysis is a systematic approach, system analysis.

The features of the subjective side of petty hooliganism are analyzed, an emphasis is placed on the mandatory hooligan motive of such an offense, attention is focused on certain deficiencies in the structure of the disposition of this norm, its obsolescence and imperfection in modern conditions that do not encompass certain illegal acts.

Results. Separately drawn attention to the peculiarities of evidence in such categories of cases. It has been proved that the recognition by a person of his guilt in an incriminated offense should be taken critically by the court and be considered, as evidence, only in conjunction with other relevant evidence. The justification of the guilt of a person solely on his confession of a perfect offense is inadmissible.

It is concluded that the protocol on administrative offense, by its legal nature, is an official act of public accusation of a person for committing an offense and, by its content, is only a generalization of certain information that was collected by the subject of a public prosecution at the stage of administrative investigation.